105.

TRIAS V GREGORIO ARANETA INC

15 SCRA 241
COST OF MAINTENANCE (SUBDIVISION OWNER)

FACTS:
JM Tuason and Co. owned a piece of land that was part of a subdivision. Thru broker Araneta Inc
(of Araneta Coliseum fame), this civic-minded company sold the land to Mr. Lopez with the condition
that said lot should never be used to erect a factory. This imposition was annotated to the TCT. A series
of transfers and conveyances later, the lot ended up in the hands of the gorgeous Dr. Rafael Trias whom
wasdismayed with the annotation that stated: “ That no factories be permitted in this section.”She
alleged that the annotation possibly hindered her plans to obtain a loan. She accordingly raised the issue
to the court and received relief.
Gregorio araneta inc.’s contends that The condition had been inserted in the title pursuant to a
contract of sale between US and DR. RAFAELA TRIAS’ predecessor-in-interest; they received no timely
notice of petition; The order disregards contractual rights and obligations; the prohibition against
factories was valid, and not a surplusage; and the court had no jurisdiction to act on the petition

ISSUE:
Whether or not the imposition (annotation that stated “5. That no factories be permitted in this
section.”) was valid.

HELD:
“Art. 688 of the New Civil Code, which provides that "the owner of a piece of land nay establish
thereon the easements which he may deem suitable, ... provided he does not contravene the law, public
policy or public order".
VALID! The easement existed to safeguard the peace and quiet of neighboring residents. The
intention is noble and the objectives benign. In the absence of a clash with public policy, the easement
may not be eroded.
NOTE: The contention of surplusage is also immaterial. Zoning regulations may be repealed
anytime, allowing the erection of factories. With the annotation, at the very least, the original intent to
bar factories remains binding.